Islington Council (202016425)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016425

Islington Council

10 August 2022


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.

Background

  1. The resident is tenant of the landlord of a ground floor flat.
  2. From January 2020, the resident advised the landlord of a water leak into her property from a neighbour’s home, for which it raised a job to investigate this on 14 January 2020 and confirmed was coming from the neighbouring home on 21 February 2020. For reasons including a lack of access to her property on 4 February 2020 and to her neighbour’s home in March, October and November 2020, and Covid–19 restrictions permitting only emergency works from May to June 2020, the leak repair was not completed until 4 December 2020.
  3. On 15 December 2020, the resident made a stage one complaint, as she believed that the leak had caused mould to develop in her property, her to throw out furniture due to damage, and affect her health so that she needed a dehumidifier. The landlord’s surveyor visited her property on 6 January 2021 and arranged a dehumidifier at her request.
  4. On 15 January 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response, giving the above reasons for the delays in the leak repair and further Covid-19 restrictions from January 2021 as affecting further works. Regarding damage caused to the resident’s flooring and furniture, it explained that it advised residents to have home contents insurance to claim for these. If she did not have such insurance, the landlord advised her to contact its representative allocated to her to discuss the options available to submit a claim. It partially upheld her complaint and apologised, as the level of service had not met the resident’s expectations or its standards, awarding her £267 compensation for the four months of leak repair delays that it was responsible for, excluding the Covid-19 restrictions from March to June 2020 and the periods of no access.
  5. On 29 January 2021, the resident advised the landlord that the walls in her property were mouldy and wet, with condensation that had affected her front door. She stated that its options that she clean the mould or let the dehumidifier run day and night were too dangerous for her pregnancy and long-term conditions, and were too expensive for her lack of income or benefits, respectively. The resident also believed that she was not being supported by the landlord with sufficient points to start bidding for better and more suitable accommodation. On 30 January 2021, she therefore escalated her complaint to the final stage of its complaints procedure, as she was not happy with its stage one complaint response.
  6. On 23 March 2021, the landlord reviewed its stage one complaint response to the resident. It apologised for the delay in providing this and awarded her £50 compensation for the delay. The landlord advised that the resident had requested the dehumidifier that was not recommended by the surveyor, and that the leak had not reached the front door. It stated that she had been informed that the customer services team did not award points for rehousing, and that she would need to address this to the re-housing team and/or her targeted tenancy officer. The landlord also said that, due to Covid-19, it had told the resident that the works for the leak into her property were cancelled, and that she should contact it to rearrange these once the lockdown restrictions were lifted, via text on 14 May 2020. However, she did not do so until 6 October 2020.
  7. The landlord advised that a damp assessment by its surveyor on 21 January 2021 had raised a job to treat the mould that had been found that was currently in progress, having been outsourced to a contractor. It added that the surveyor noted that all of the windows in the resident’s home showed condensation, and that the heating was off and only used if needed. To assist with the condensation, the landlord advised that the property had to be ventilated and heated appropriately and that, following the review of her complaint, it awarded her £275 further compensation for another three months of delays for the mould treatment works that it expected to complete by the end of April 2021, which included £50 for the delayed review.
  8. The resident subsequently escalated her complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 24 March 2021. In its final stage complaint response on 23 August 2021, it acknowledged and apologised for the delayed response, and offered her £75 compensation for this. Following the resident’s continued concerns about mould and damp, the landlord reported that a second survey was completed on 12 May 2021, confirming that there was no visible damp and mould on the walls and ceiling, with minimal mould growth on the bathroom ceiling due to condensation for her to treat.
  9. The landlord also advised that the January 2021 survey had confirmed that there was heavy condensation on the resident’s front door that was rehung that month, but it apologised that there were three further visits up to 6 August 2021 to ease this and overhaul the lock. It responded to her concerns about the cost of running a dehumidifier by stating that payments were only given for these if a surveyor had required this, but they had not. Although the resident was not given a specific payment for the cost of running dehumidifiers, she had accepted £317 compensation for delayed works, time and inconvenience, and the landlord again partly upheld her complaint with no further faults identified.
  10. The resident then complained to this Service about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in her home. She reported that this had now affected her eight-month–old baby’s health. The resident also said that she had spoken to the landlord numerous times to seek air vents either on walls or windows to try and minimise the mould growth but had no response from it, for which she sought assistance for it to put this right, as well as for her damaged belongings and transfer application bidding points.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints that concern matters where the resident is seeking an outcome that is not within our authority to provide. Although the resident has raised concerns regarding the effect of the damp and mould on her and her baby’s health and her damaged belongings, it is outside the scope of this investigation to investigate these issues because we do not have the authority to determine liability or award damages for ill-health or belongings in the way that a court or insurer might.
  2. Under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will also not investigate complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman. The resident’s request for more points to bid on her transfer application to the landlord, as the local authority, is therefore outside the scope of this investigation. This is because complaints about reasonable preference re-housing applications to local authorities, including the award of points for them, fall properly under the Local Government Social Care Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider and not ours.
  3. Moreover, under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints that are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. As a result, while the resident reports that it has not responded to her requests for vents on her walls or windows to try and minimise mould growth, this is outside the scope of this investigation. This is because there is no evidence that a complaint from her about this has exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure yet.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property

  1. The resident’s initial report of the water leak into her property from a neighbour’s home, for which a job was raised to investigate on 14 January 2020 by the landlord, was classed as a non-urgent routine repair due within 20 working days under its housing repairs guide. It arranged an appointment with her for this on 4 February 2020, 15 working days later, but when it attended on that date she was not available, which it was not responsible for.
  2. The landlord was also not responsible for the delays in it repairing the leak within the 20-working-day timescale after this was identified on 21 February 2021 as coming from the resident’s neighbour’s home. This is because it was prevented from completing this until 4 December 2020 by a lack of access from the neighbour in March, October and November 2020 and Covid-19 restrictions from May to June 2020, as well her not contacting it to rearrange the works between June and October 2020, despite it asking her to do so on 14 May 2020.
  3. Once the resident then advised the landlord of damp and mould in her property on 15 December 2020, its surveyor visited her on 6 January 2021, 13 working days later, and arranged a dehumidifier at her request. It subsequently arranged for a damp inspection and assessment that were carried out on 21 January 2021, which raised jobs to treat the mould that it had found that its later survey of 12 May 2021 found that it had addressed by that date, and to rehang, ease and overhaul the lock of her front door that it completed on 6 August 2021. Although it is noted that the landlord advised the resident on 15 January 2021 that these works would be delayed by the Covid-19 restrictions from January 2021, which continued until the end of March 2021 and would have left it with repair backlogs and shortages that would have further delayed their completion.
  4. It was nevertheless appropriate that the landlord partially upheld the resident’s stage one complaint on 15 January 2021, as its service had not met her expectations or its standards, given that it had taken almost 11 months to repair the water leak into her property instead of 20 working days. It therefore offered her £267 compensation for the four months of the delay that it was responsible for, excluding the Covid-19 restrictions from March to June 2020 as well as the above periods of no access and lack of contact, in recognition of her experience with the leak, inconvenience, time and effort. This was reasonable because the landlord acknowledged its failing and redressed this via a payment at similar rate to the recommendation for delayed internal major works under its housing procedure refunds, compensation and remedies.
  5. On 29 January 2021, the resident advised the landlord of her high electricity bills that she attributed to the running of the dehumidifier. It is noted that it advised her that the dehumidifier was requested by her, and not by its surveyor that would have required it to give her a payment for this, but that it still offered her £317 compensation for delayed works, time and inconvenience, which she had accepted.
  6. During its subsequent stage one complaint response review on 23 March 2021, the landlord informed the resident of its damp surveyor’s findings, and that it had sought to treat the mould that had been found that was further delayed due to the above Covid-19 restrictions, but that this was outsourced to a contractor and was progressing. It also informed her about reducing condensation with its advice that her property had to be ventilated and heated appropriately. The landlord further awarded the resident £275 compensation for another three months of delays for the mould treatment works, as recommended by its housing procedure refunds, compensation and remedies for delayed internal major works, which was appropriate including because this incorporated £50 for its delayed review.
  7. In its final stage complaint response of 23 August 2021, the landlord advised the resident that, due to her continued concern regarding the damp and mould in her property, it had carried out a second damp survey on 12 May 2021. This had concluded that there was no visible damp or mould on the walls or ceiling of the property and, additionally, the surveyor had checked her bathroom, where there was minimal mould growth on the ceiling due to condensation, for which she had been informed about treating this herself.
  8. The landlord also advised that, regarding the resident’s concern about her front door, which it had attended until 6 August 2021, it acknowledged that this had been inconvenient for her and should have been resolved sooner, for which it apologised. It also offered her an additional £75 compensation in recognition of the delay in its final stage complaint response, bringing the total amount of compensation offered to her to £617, resolving her complaint satisfactorily in line with its housing procedure refunds, compensation and remedies.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of her reports of damp and mould in her property satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. Re-offer the £617 total compensation already awarded to the resident, if she has not received this already.
    2. Review its repairs team’s processes for issuing timely works orders for lengthy and major works to try and ensure that their delays in doing so in the resident’s case do not occur again.
    3. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its complaints policy to seek to avoid a recurrence of their delayed complaint responses to the resident in the future.